Why do x86-64 systems have only a 48 bit virtual address space?

Any answer referring to the bus size and physical memory is slightly mistaken, since OP's question was about virtual address space not physical address space. For example the supposedly analogous limit on some 386's was a limit on the physical memory they could use, not the virtual address space, which was always a full 32 bits. In principle you could use a full 64 bits of virtual address space even with only a few MB of physical memory; of course you could do so by swapping, or for specialized tasks where you want to map the same page at most addresses (e.g. certain sparse-data operations).

I think the real answer is that AMD was just being cheap and hoped nobody would care for now, but I don't have references to cite.

Because that's all that's needed. 48 bits give you an address space of 256 terabyte. That's a lot. You're not going to see a system which needs more than that any time soon.

So CPU manufacturers took a shortcut. They use an instruction set which allows a full 64-bit address space, but current CPUs just only use the lower 48 bits. The alternative was wasting transistors on handling a bigger address space which wasn't going to be needed for many years.

So once we get near the 48-bit limit, it's just a matter of releasing CPUs that handle the full address space, but it won't require any changes to the instruction set, and it won't break compatibility.